papalazeru wrote:c'mon....If we are all going to 'Cry Wolf' about media and censorship...why don't books have a rating?

Thank you!

Although some books have caused controversy too. Remember Jon Stewarts book with nude supreme court "justices"? Wal-Mart wouldn't carry it because they are lame hypocrits that sell Basic Instinct on DVD but not that highly informative book...

Oh come on now, even though books are violent and such they're pretty different from visual media. You don't see someone get killed, you imagine it. I'm not saying that books shouldn't be rated, or can't frak you up and scare you but to hold them on the same level as games or films, in the same convo as Manhunt 2 where is a bit flippant IMHO.

Last edited by MonkeyM666 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

MonkeyM666 wrote:Oh come on now, even though books are violent and such they're pretty different from visual media. You don't see someone get killed, you imagine it. I'm not saying that books shouldn't be rated, or can't frak you up and scare you but to hold them on the same level as games or films, in the same convo as Manhunt 2 where is a bit flippant IMHO.

Yeah but I read about disembowelment in school, I didn't act it out with a wii controller or see it in full Technicolor glory.

I just don't think that books are on the same level as it doesn't take imagination to see a games violence, it's shown to you. The imagination of the director/creator is whatâ€™s used not your own. A kids imagination may not be the same as a 38 year old filmmaker from Holland.

The human mind is far more dangerous then any visual thing. I would never want to see what runs through a persons mind after reading some books. You might act out violence on a Wii controller, but what someone can think up....that's scary.

MonkeyM666 wrote:Yeah but I read about disembowelment in school, I didn't act it out with a wii controller or see it in full Technicolor glory.

I just don't think that books are on the same level as it doesn't take imagination to see a games violence, it's shown to you. The imagination of the director/creator is whatâ€™s used not your own. A kids imagination may not be the same as a 38 year old filmmaker from Holland.

If you can teach philosophy and a way of life through a book you sure as hell can instruct someone on how to kill or maim. Plus, you can also show the mental pleasure someone experiences through doing torture...moreso than a stupid grin on the cinema.

I think it's the thought process that over-balances people.

...and I'll have none of this 'books are art though' becuase I will kill everyone of you muthafuckin' snobs.

Last edited by papalazeru on Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think what Papa is saying is that when people do complain about books, their complaints are largely -and IMO correctly- ignored. But in the case of videogames, any dissenting voices are amplified, usually by the media.

As for the difference between books and games - yes, they ARE different. In my opinion, books are much, much worse.

Like you say Monkey - you don't see, you IMAGINE. So somebody who sees a character get killed in a game has merely witnessed an external, virtual event. Somebody who reads the same thing in a book, may have been invited to get inside the mind of the killer, to think as they do - and, in some way, to imagine what it would actually be like to kill somebody.

I find violent imagery in books stays with me for a lot longer than imagery from movies or games - because in a book, you make the pictures yourself, and they are likely to be far worse than anything you can create with some nifty CGI and a balloon full of fake blood. In books, everything is internalised in the reader. This is partly why I have choosen my books very carefully ever since I read American Psycho back in the early 90s....

ETA: Oops! it seems this point has just been made several times.....I really should get back to work.

ThisIsTheGirl wrote:I think what Papa is saying is that when people do complain about books, their complaints are largely -and IMO correctly- ignored. But in the case of videogames, any dissenting voices are amplified, usually by the media.

As for the difference between books and games - yes, they ARE different. In my opinion, books are much, much worse.

Like you say Monkey - you don't see, you IMAGINE. So somebody who sees a character get killed in a game has merely witnessed an external, virtual event. Somebody who reads the same thing in a book, may have been invited to get inside the mind of the killer, to think as they do - and, in some way, to imagine what it would actually be like to kill somebody.

I find violent imagery in books stays with me for a lot longer than imagery from movies or games - because in a book, you make the pictures yourself, and they are likely to be far worse than anything you can create with some nifty CGI and a balloon full of fake blood. In books, everything is internalised in the reader. This is partly why I have choosen my books very carefully ever since I read American Psycho back in the early 90s....

Careful guys...back away. TITG's got a spoon and he ain't afraid to use it....

What I'm trying to say (nice try in putting words in my mouth ) is that a book could be construed as an instructional guide just as games are. Most people could debate that books can be 'works of fiction' yet that argument works for games.

I personally find it a little hypocritical that if it's displayed as a visual medium, involving some participation and someone goes out and does it - you're called mental. Surely it should be 'pulling a physical' no?

Everyone thought Silence of the Lambs was the scariest piece of shit on this planet when it came, not becuase of what you see but what you don't.

haha... Well you've all made very good points. I know exactly what you're all saying and it's fair enough and I do agree, to a point (I did post that above, I'm sure that I did ) I'm just not sure if the issue of books is on par with games and films with the mind of an impressionable child. Books do have an internal censor, the language barrier. A 6 year old kid couldnâ€™t read or understand Poe or Mein Kampf, but can completely understand when someone is seen torn asunder, or for games ripping someone in two.

MonkeyM666 wrote:haha... Well you've all made very good points. I know exactly what you're all saying and it's fair enough and I do agree, to a point (I did post that above, I'm sure that I did ) I'm just not sure if the issue of books is on par with games and films with the mind of an impressionable child. Books do have an internal censor, the language barrier. A 6 year old kid couldnâ€™t read or understand Poe or Mein Kampf, but can completely understand when someone is seen torn asunder, or for games ripping someone in two.

OK...you bring up whether kids can understand but the bible is taught in schools which has very graphic imagery, especially Judas spilling his guts on a field.

@ TITG...It's not about complaining about books, it's more about there's no censorship surrounding books yet other mediums there is.

Lolita is a prime example, if you took it at it's most exploitative level, it's paedophilia (looking at it from a Daily Mail perspective), yet it's also highly regarded as a literary work and yet if anyone were to post a paedophilic story on the net you would be arrested or lynch mobbed.

My point is that there is so much censorship surrounding all these mediums yet books escape scot free. I'm saying I would agree with censoring books, I would agree more with saying,
'Ok, this has this in it and it's not recommended to youngsters without a parent being with them to explain either the ideas or concepts', but then I would be repeating myself from another thread.

MonkeyM666 wrote:haha... Well you've all made very good points. I know exactly what you're all saying and it's fair enough and I do agree, to a point (I did post that above, I'm sure that I did ) I'm just not sure if the issue of books is on par with games and films with the mind of an impressionable child. Books do have an internal censor, the language barrier. A 6 year old kid couldnâ€™t read or understand Poe or Mein Kampf, but can completely understand when someone is seen torn asunder, or for games ripping someone in two.

OK...you bring up whether kids can understand but the bible is taught in schools which has very graphic imagery, especially Judas spilling his guts on a field.

@ TITG...It's not about complaining about books, it's more about there's no censorship surrounding books yet other mediums there is.

Lolita is a prime example, if you took it at it's most exploitative level, it's paedophilia (looking at it from a Daily Mail perspective), yet it's also highly regarded as a literary work and yet if anyone were to post a paedophilic story on the net you would be arrested or lynch mobbed.

Up to a certain age the bible is read to the students.... and there is the old parental/guardian responsibility argument again. For a child to actually read a book which is graphically inappropriate is much, much harder considering that they're still learning the basics.

EDIT: Damn you added more!

The thing is that I am agreeing with censoring books, well not censoring books but rating books. My point is that itâ€™s different then a visual medium when discussing the effect on a child.

Last edited by MonkeyM666 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

papalazeru wrote: @ TITG...It's not about complaining about books, it's more about there's no censorship surrounding books yet other mediums there is.

Lolita is a prime example, if you took it at it's most exploitative level, it's paedophilia (looking at it from a Daily Mail perspective), yet it's also highly regarded as a literary work and yet if anyone were to post a paedophilic story on the net you would be arrested or lynch mobbed.

Due to its subject matter, Nabokov was unable to find an American publisher for Lolita. After four refused, he finally resorted to the Olympia Press in Paris. Although the first printing of 5,000 copies sold out, there were no substantial reviews. Eventually, at the end of 1954, Graham Greene, in an interview with the (London) Times, called it one of the best novels of 1954. This statement provoked a response from the (London) Sunday Express whose editor called it "the filthiest book I have ever read" and "sheer unrestrained pornography." British Customs officers were then instructed by a panicked Home Office to seize all copies entering the United Kingdom. In December 1956 the French followed suit and the Minister of the Interior banned Lolita (the ban lasted for two years). Its eventual British publication by Weidenfeld & Nicolson caused a scandal which contributed to the end of the political career of one of the publishers, Nigel Nicolson. [1]By complete contrast, American officials were initially nervous, but the first American edition was issued without problems by G.P. Putnam's Sons in 1958, and was a bestseller, the first book since Gone with the Wind to sell 100,000 copies in the first three weeks of publication.Today, it is considered by many one of the finest novels written in the 20th century. In 1998, it was named the fourth greatest English language novel of the 20th century by the Modern Library.

A press release today about the subject by the Dutch authority states the following;

An investigation will be held as how to prevent underage children to buy games with adult content. 'Kijkwijzer' (dutch rating company) will simply judge the game on it's content and suggest an age restriction and a description of the content. If the 'problem' of underage children buying adult rated games or films continue to rise, buying these games will probably gonna require minors to prove their age by showing an identity card. Much like with buying alcoholic beaverages. 16+ for beers and 21+ for stronger liquor. If the store sells it nonetheless they can get a penalty.

This are but options of measures we can take to protect and prevent children from buying adult only content, but we can never control a parential decission. If a parent decides to buy an adult rated game for their kids then that's their decission. We can only advice.

We will never ban games. Like films, books and music, games can not be touched with censorship. This is enclosed in the right of freedom of speech.

That sums it up pretty much. Now I just hope Take Two continues to release it. The store still states that it'' be released on July 13. But Take Two says, the game is on hold. We shall see

Evil Hobbit wrote:A press release today about the subject by the Dutch authority states the following;

An investigation will be held as how to prevent underage children to buy games with adult content. 'Kijkwijzer' (dutch rating company) will simply judge the game on it's content and suggest an age restriction and a description of the content. If the 'problem' of underage children buying adult rated games or films continue to rise, buying these games will probably gonna require minors to prove their age by showing an identity card. Much like with buying alcoholic beaverages. 16+ for beers and 21+ for stronger liquor. If the store sells it nonetheless they can get a penalty.

This are but options of measures we can take to protect and prevent children from buying adult only content, but we can never control a parential decission. If a parent decides to buy an adult rated game for their kids then that's their decission. We can only advice.

We will never ban games. Like films, books and music, games can not be touched with censorship. This is enclosed in the right of freedom of speech.

That sums it up pretty much. Now I just hope Take Two continues to release it. The store still states that it'' be released on July 13. But Take Two says, the game is on hold. We shall see

Perfect. Put the onus on the parents. If they aren't looking after their kids well enough to see what they are doing then that's their tough - prosecute the fuckers.

I have to admit that it's alot tougher to police now thanks to illegal downloads but this is where the parents come in.

I hear so many parents say, "That's my boy", with a proud expression when they do something right but when something bad happens they blame other people.

Evil Hobbit wrote:A press release today about the subject by the Dutch authority states the following;

An investigation will be held as how to prevent underage children to buy games with adult content. 'Kijkwijzer' (dutch rating company) will simply judge the game on it's content and suggest an age restriction and a description of the content. If the 'problem' of underage children buying adult rated games or films continue to rise, buying these games will probably gonna require minors to prove their age by showing an identity card. Much like with buying alcoholic beaverages. 16+ for beers and 21+ for stronger liquor. If the store sells it nonetheless they can get a penalty.

This are but options of measures we can take to protect and prevent children from buying adult only content, but we can never control a parential decission. If a parent decides to buy an adult rated game for their kids then that's their decission. We can only advice.

We will never ban games. Like films, books and music, games can not be touched with censorship. This is enclosed in the right of freedom of speech.

That sums it up pretty much. Now I just hope Take Two continues to release it. The store still states that it'' be released on July 13. But Take Two says, the game is on hold. We shall see

Take Two should be patting themselves on the back for letting this become such a huge deal. All it did was make the general public aware and curious. If I had a peice of crap useless Wii I would be more inclined to get that game now out of sheer curiosity when it comes out. They should release a doc. online about the game in it's present form so we can at least know what it was supposed to be like before they have to water it down for that coveted M rating.

As for the quote, they list all the things minors are restricted from, but they'll get it anyway. Minor's always find a way. Or at least I know I did.

OK - I'll try to pick up on wghere we left off yesterday - but have mercy for I'm hungover like a dog and might not be quite as mentally agile as I should be for this kind of debate.

You make various points so I'm going to try and separate them out and take them on one-by-one:

ThisIsTheGirl wrote:In the BBFC's statement, they quite clearly take a similar line to you - at least, that's how I took their reference to the game presenting an "unjustifiable" risk of harm to both adults and minors. My problem with this is these repeated references to things like "formative years".

For those who are interested/did not know - a good place to start with "formative years" are the various psychological studies surrounding Cognitive Development - the Godfather of whom was a guy called Jean Piaget, who focussed in particular on the effect 'play' has on our development.

He broke it down into 4 'Cognitive Stages', which ran something like 0-2 yrs, 2-7, 7 to about 12, and then 12 onwards. The rate of learning and assimilating is much more rapid for the first 3 stages, but remains active for the fourth. Depending on the individual's intelligence, mental age, environment and a whole host of other factors, 'formative years' can run way beyond the teen years.

Whilst the issue of whether computer games (or any other media) cause violence remains a contentious one - the fact that play has an effect on our cognitive development is not. It is one of the very few things in psychology that is not in dispute - so the line between the two becomes very blurry for me and this one of the things I find hard to get away from when considering these kind of topics.

ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Because of course, the truth is, ratings DO achieve something - certainly in the case of movies: they prevent immediate access to those too young to watch them. I'm not saying that kids don't eventually get their hands on these movies, but it is made difficult for them, which is all one can hope to achieve - the rest is up to those in charge of the kids.

On an idealistic level I agree with you 100% on this. And I admire anyone who takes the optimistic view and believes this is what society should be aiming for and it starts with setting our sights accordingly.

But when it comes to the practicality of it, I end up taking a different view. I think that yes, the ratings system works to a significant degree - certainly to the point where it is worth having even if sometimes the enforcing of it gives way to some risible hypocrisies.

However, the ratings system is never going to be enough on its own and I don't like the idea of then saying "The rest is up to the parents" - because I'm afraid there's a whole underclass out there, not to mention irresponsible parents in all other classes too - that quite simply couldn't care less. Whether they're spoiling their child, or too weak and give the child whatever it wants to shut it up - and so on and so on.

So what do you do - shrug your shoulders and say "Their Bad", or accept that's the case and pick up the slack as the responsible element of society?

ThisIsTheGirl wrote:I have huge difficulty in relating any random act of violence I see or read about in the paper to a movie or videogame. There were something like 7 teen murders in the UK last weekend, and I'd be willing to bet hard cash that the kids responsible were more influenced by hip-hop lyrics than videogames. And yet, we haven't heard calls to step up enforcement of the "Parental Advisory" warning labels. Again, for me so much of this comes back to parenting - banning a videogame/movie/album on the grounds of its content sounds like a classic case of shutting the stable door after the horse has well and truly bolted, which leaves me with the feeling that it will ultimately achieve nothing. It's legislating against what people MIGHT do, instead of trying to create a situation which encourages people to simply behave better.

I agree - I don't think any one song, game, book or film will ever cause a right-thinking individual to go commit an act of violence. But I do think that all of them together have an effect on the social development of a significant minority (by which I mean thousands). It IS a very very difficult thing to ajudge. The biggest problem is where do you draw the line? I mean, a whole generation listened to punk music and today a goodly portion of them are bank managers etc. And after the seventies you could argue that people had a right to be pissed off! So you can't deny people the freedom of expression - the backlash if you do will likely be far worse than anything you're trying to suppress.

In that sense, I am on the other side of the fence to where I stand on this game - and I'm aware of the ambiguity of trying to adopt the different positions to suit each scenario.

But with this game, I find myself saying - OK, forget that stuff for a moment...I'm not trying to burn any books, or take up a snipers position across from Speakers Corner. I just can't get my head around this urge to make this game. I see in my mind, not one of my Zoner buddies having fun with what they know to be just a game - but some ASBO, whooping and hollerin with delight as he yells over his shoulder to his mate "Now watch me fuck the neck wound!", Wii controller in hand.

You're right TitG - why does the motion detector make such a difference to me? I don't think I'd have anything like the same strength of reaction to this game if it was exactly the same but without the motion detection.

I've been thinking on that a lot over the past few days - but I can't get away from it - that aspect I do find quite troubling. I guess its because it takes the 'player' that one step closer to simulating the act, it brings it just a little farther away from the realm of gaming and a little more towards re-enactment.

ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Another big problem is that, while I might respect all of your reasons for feeling the way you do, I think there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that this line of thinking can lead to wild generalisations in the mainstream press. That kid who shot up his college in Virginia a couple of months back - he was obsessed with Oldboy, right? There were calls for Oldboy to be banned in the wake of that tragedy. For me, the thought process which would lead someone to say the Manhunt 2 ban was a good idea, is just a precursor to the type of thinking which sees people blaming Oldboy for Virginia, or blaming Rambo for Hungerford, as also happened at the time, I believe.

In closing, I will say "guns don't kill people, rappers do. I seen it in a documentary on BBC2"

Some of the mainstream press (I'm looking at you, Daily Mail) are quite frankly, scarier than any of this in how they report this kind of thing. And it brings me back to the problem of just where do you draw that line? Wherever it gets drrawn, there will be a vocal minority that very quickly will say "Not there - THERE!"/ The only other alternative is not to draw it at all - but that does leave the door wide open for exploitation of human nature's excesses - and I'm afraid that is very rarely a good idea.

If we look at the wider picture and consider society, rather than just the gaming community, the overwhelming opinion is that this game is not a good thing - and society's opinion should count for something as they're the people that have to live next door.

Responsible self-regulation is to my mind a better ideal than exploitation for pure financial gain. I'm happy that that guy got to listen to punk music way back in '79 - but it came as little consolation to me at the time when, as a 7 year old he spat in my face because I was wearing a school uniform.

Simon & Garfunkel would never have let that happen

ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Excellent - maybe I'll finally have someone to accompany me when I go reaping bloody justice on the strumpets of the night....

I'm never doing that again - whose stupid idea was it to give whores Pepper Spray?

*rubs eyes*

"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Everyone knows you will buy this game because it's the only way you are going to be able to teach your delinquent kids in school.

I'd also recommend you watch 187 and 'The Substitute"...just to brush up on a few techniques and then apply them to the parents so they don't spawn out another whiney little abso bitch that loves to push you about and yet when you try to hit them they suddenly all become lawyers and start quoting basic human and legal rights at you.

I just wish that they invented a decent pesticide which would deal with them...especially one that killed anyone wearing fake Burberry.

I for one am looking forward to this game as below the shallow facade that people love to give this game, lies a more complex and playable quality.

Maybe it could have done without the violence..maybe not. I don't think the game wouldn't have worked so well if you had to sneak up on people and 'tag' them like the worlds worst game of Tag.

Now, I'm making plans to pick up a book and beat you to death with it.......

I've had to deliberately avoid this thread today, as it has a habit of sucking me in to the point where I am likely to get fired from my job.

I fully intend to chime in later - but for now, I am meeting a couple of reprobate Zoners for a beer. I'll try and get a pic of me trying the "pliers balltwist" - or better yet, the "neckstump violation" move on Doc....

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Monday a California law to label violent video games and bar their sale to minors was unconstitutional, prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to say he would appeal the ruling.

California passed a law in 2005 regulating video games with strong support from Schwarzenegger, the former star of many violent action films. Legislators argued violent video games could bring psychological harm and spark aggressive behavior in minors.

The Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association promptly sued to block the law, arguing their games were protected under the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Judge Ronald Whyte, who had previously granted a preliminary injunction against the law, issued a permanent order that also cited conclusions from judges facing similar laws in other states.

"At this point, there has been no showing that violent video games as defined in the Act, in the absence of other violent media, cause injury to children," he wrote in his decision. "In addition, the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, Internet sites or other speech-related exposures."

"Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally accepted study that supports that concern."

Schwarzenegger, who once starred in the "Terminator" movies, said he would appeal the case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

"Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents."

In his ruling, Judge Whyte said he was sympathetic to the goals of the legislation, but said it improperly set free speech restrictions.

UK, October 8, 2007 - Rockstar's attempts to publish its Manhunt 2 in the UK, following the British Board of Film Classification's decision to deny the game a rating, has hit another brick wall. The BBFC has now rejected a revised edition of the game, saying that, although it recognises that changes have been made, they don't go far enough to address concerns raised with the original submission.

David Cooke, director of the BBFC said: "The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient. There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature.

"We did make suggestions for further changes to the game, but the distributor has chosen not to make them, and as a result we have rejected the game on both platforms. The decision on whether or not an appeal goes ahead lies with the distributor."

In June the BBFC refused to give Manhunt 2 a classification, saying its "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone [...] constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing".

Rockstar's appeal against the decision was suspended while the developer offered up a revised version of the game. We contacted Rockstar for comment and a statement is set for release shortly.

Over in the US, the revised version of Manhunt 2 was finally granted an 'M' rating by the ESRB, following the original submission's kiss-of-death 'AO' classification. The updated game will now hit US stores on October 29.

That's strange. Especially since they wouldn't have made the same mistake twice. It's very expensive to keep going back and re-doing things. Might as well just release it here in the states this year and give the UK a chance to import or something.

So after all the hype, bad press, rejections & edits, how is the game doing in America?

Has anyone played it?
Are stores actually stocking it now?
Are parents paying attention to the age restriction?
Was it much ado about nothing?
Or has it been altered so much that answering my last question would be pointless?